21:02:28 <ttx>#startmeeting project21:02:29 <openstack> Meeting started Tue Sep 25 21:02:28 2012 UTC. The chair is ttx. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
21:02:30 <openstack> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic #startvote.
21:02:31 <openstack> The meeting name has been set to 'project'
21:02:39 <ttx> Agenda @ http://wiki.openstack.org/Meetings/ProjectMeeting
21:02:49 <ttx> 2 days to final Folsom release!
21:03:06 <ttx>#info We'll soon be in show-stoppers mode -- new RCs should only be triggered by release deliverables issues or annoying regressions with obviously safe fixes21:03:38 <ttx>#topic Keystone status21:03:43 <ttx>heckj: o/
21:03:49 <ttx>#info Keystone has a long-standing RC1 that might be a winner!21:03:57 <heckj> about to break it
21:04:07 <heckj> bug 1056373 -> for an RC2
21:04:08 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1056373 in keystone "memcache driver needs protection against non-string keys" [Critical,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1056373
21:04:09 <zykes-> hah :p
21:04:16 <ttx> hah!
21:04:35 <ttx> not even properly tagged so that it flies below my radar, nice
21:04:54 <heckj> found and linked it up this morning - was a comment on a fixed bug elsewhere
21:05:16 <ttx>heckj: business summary ? Why couldn't we fix it in stable/folsom ?
21:06:05 <heckj> utf-8 broken-ness that none of us tested previously - actually intend to backport to essex as well - not an explicit regression so much as a nasty, nasty bug
21:06:40 <soren> I don't understand how users can trigger it?
21:07:11 <heckj>soren: dolphm_ nailed it down this morning, associated review has tests to verify the fix
21:08:10 <ttx>heckj: technically it could be fixed post-release but you've been pretty calm in the RC front, so...
21:08:19 <heckj> that's it though - code review in progress, looking pretty good
21:08:24 <ttx>heckj: how safe is that fix ?
21:08:29 <heckj>ttx: yeah - would just prefer to get it fixed ASAP.
21:08:33 <heckj>ttx: very
21:08:58 <heckj> could easily do backports for resolving it if you'd prefer
21:09:19 <ttx>heckj: ok, will open a RC2 window, and tag tomorrow morning at the latest
21:09:38 <ttx>#info Keystone RC2 window with bug 1056373 in21:09:38 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1056373 in keystone "memcache driver needs protection against non-string keys" [Critical,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1056373
21:10:00 <ttx>heckj: nothing else, right ?
21:10:07 <heckj>ttx: process question - we need to fix in master and also backport into milestone-proposed, correct?
21:10:21 <ttx>heckj: yes, push the fix to master then backport to MP
21:10:33 <heckj> cool, thanks. Nothing else
21:10:36 <ttx>heckj: I can handle that part if the fix is committed to master
21:10:46 <ttx> will ping you just after meeting
21:10:51 <ttx> Looking at release notes status now:
21:10:54 <ttx>#link http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Folsom#OpenStack_Identity_.28Keystone.2921:10:59 <ttx>heckj: No upgrade notes ?
21:11:53 <heckj>ttx: i'll put some in there re: PKI tokens
21:12:01 <ttx> Also, could you add links to bugs in the known issues section ?
21:12:06 <heckj> yep
21:12:13 <ttx> ok
21:12:15 <ttx> How is planning for the Design Summit "Keystone" topic going so far ?
21:12:24 <ttx> I see 6 sessions proposed over a total of 9 available slots, not bad
21:12:37 <heckj> pretty good shape - 3 open slots, expecting some to come in last minute based on last summit.
21:12:40 <heckj> core bits are all there
21:12:54 <ttx>heckj: anything else ?
21:12:59 <heckj> nope
21:13:03 <ttx> Questions about Keystone ?
21:13:35 <ttx>heckj: milestone opened @ https://launchpad.net/keystone/+milestone/folsom-rc2 with bug targeted
21:13:46 <ttx>heckj: please land fix in master asap
21:13:58 <ttx>#topic Swift status21:14:03 <notmyname> hi
21:14:04 <ttx>notmyname: hi!
21:14:08 <ttx>#info Swift has 1.7.2 as Folsom candidate21:14:13 <ttx>notmyname: Everything still looking good on that side ?
21:14:24 <notmyname> mostly, but there is one possible thing that has come up
21:14:29 <notmyname> https://bugs.launchpad.net/swift/+bug/1055834
21:14:30 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1055834 in swift "Memory Leak" [Critical,Fix committed]
21:14:36 <ttx> Was wondering if that was a regression or something that's been around forever
21:14:43 <notmyname> this was just patched
21:15:02 <notmyname> ya, I think it's been around for a while
21:15:11 <notmyname> ie not a regression from some recent patch
21:15:23 <ttx> then I'd say let's fix it in a later version
21:15:38 <ttx> rather than rush a 1.7.3 for folsom inclusion
21:15:48 <ttx> or 1.7.4 or whatever
21:15:53 <ttx>notmyname: thoughts ?
21:15:56 <notmyname> of course, I'd prefer to have it the release so that I can remove the "Known Issues" ;-)
21:16:27 <ttx> if people have been living with it so far, must not be that obvious of a leak
21:16:28 <notmyname> I don't know what's possible from your side, but from our side it's in master and vetted
21:17:21 <ttx>notmyname: hrrm.
21:17:30 * ttxlooks at the fix21:18:04 <notmyname> I'm going to push for the fix to go in folsom, but we'll have a release soon after. either way, it will get fixed. it's more an issue of how soon people get it (ie if they only use the openstack 6-month releases)
21:18:58 <ttx> Looks a bit dangerous to me
21:19:18 <ttx>notmyname: distros can carry the patch if they want
21:20:16 <ttx>notmyname: and due to swift using full versions we'd have to play tricks with versions again.
21:20:18 <notmyname> I don't really have a response to that :-/
21:20:33 <ttx> sigh
21:20:36 <creiht> lol
21:20:58 <creiht> I'll comment... Patch not added because it would be inconvenient
21:21:01 <creiht> >:)
21:21:28 <ttx> well, usually when we cut a release we have RAX QA go over it for 4 days
21:21:44 <ttx> now you're telling me a one-hour-old patch is safe to ship...
21:21:58 <notmyname> well, it's actually already in RAX prod
21:22:14 <ttx> ah. that counts
21:22:27 <ttx>notmyname: ok, let's do it ... 1.7.3 ? 1.7.4 ?
21:23:09 <ttx>notmyname: are you up to aligning the versioning on the different branches ?
21:23:19 <notmyname> sorry, lag here
21:23:53 <notmyname> ya, so 1.7.4 for milestone proposed and 1.7.5 for master. I'll include the version bump in the backport
21:24:03 <ttx>notmyname: go for it
21:24:15 <ttx> I can cut/release tomorrow morning if the branches are all set
21:24:32 <ttx> another topic:
21:24:34 <ttx> How is planning for the "Swift" topic at the design summit going so far ?
21:24:35 <notmyname> they'll be ready this afternoon
21:24:56 <notmyname> good. we have a few proposals so far, and I've got a backlog of stuff to talk about to
21:25:04 <notmyname> we're having a swift meeting next monday about it
21:25:05 <notmyname> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-September/001368.html
21:25:05 <ttx>notmyname: ok, just send me an email confirming the commit ID for 1.7.4 and I'll make it happen
21:25:07 <notmyname>#link http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2012-September/001368.html21:25:19 <ttx>notmyname: was wondering if we couldn't give the two Tuesday morning slots to the "QA" topic
21:25:26 <ttx> given that "QA" topic is already over capacity (10 proposed for only 5 available slots)
21:25:33 <ttx> Swift would have 8 session slots (instead of 10) and QA would have 7 (instead of 5)
21:25:43 <ttx> would your schedule fit into that ?
21:25:55 <notmyname> ah. ya, let me see what's in the queue, but there is a chance of that. who should I coordinate with about that?
21:26:10 <ttx>notmyname: me a jaypipes
21:26:14 <gabrielhurley>ttx: you'll probably be able to steal two or so from Horizon, too, just FYI
21:26:15 <ttx> s/a/and/
21:26:22 <notmyname> ok, will do
21:26:26 <ttx>gabrielhurley: it's more difficult to steal from horizon
21:26:34 <ttx> because the topics are not contiguous
21:26:39 <gabrielhurley> ah
21:26:48 <ttx>notmyname: anything else ?
21:27:05 <ttx> Questions on Swift ?
21:27:14 <notmyname> SF Bay meetup on Oct 11, if you're in the area
21:27:19 <notmyname> that's all I have
21:27:53 <ttx>#topic Glance status21:28:00 <ttx>bcwaldon: o/
21:28:06 <ttx>#info Glance had its RC2 published earlier today21:28:52 <ttx>notmyname: created https://launchpad.net/swift/+milestone/1.7.4
21:29:01 <ttx> looks like we don't have bcwaldon
21:29:15 <ttx>danwent: around ?
21:29:29 <danwent> yup
21:29:34 <ttx>#topic Quantum status21:29:43 <ttx>#info Quantum had its RC2 published Friday and we have a RC3 already cooking21:29:50 <ttx> which should be published just after the meeting
21:30:01 <ttx>danwent: Is there anything on the rc-potential list that we should add ?
21:30:06 <ttx>#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/quantum/+bugs?field.tag=folsom-rc-potential21:30:18 <ttx> Don't think any of those is a show-stopper that needs to be fixed /before/ release
21:30:31 <danwent> i'm not planning on doing anything for the zmq stuff for the folsom release
21:30:44 <danwent> things still seem up in the air and rabbit + qpid are fully supported
21:31:06 <danwent> just want people to be aware
21:31:18 <danwent> two other issues are very minor
21:31:31 <ttx>danwent: should we remove zmq from quantum completely ?
21:31:51 <ewindisch>ttx/danwent: I believe only dhcp_agent won't work.
21:31:51 <ttx> ISTR someone suggested that, haven't looked up the thread since meetign started
21:32:23 <ewindisch> the other agents should work, but you might need to use an external matchmaker to reasonably scale more than a few nodes.
21:32:26 <danwent>ewindisch: ok, so in theory someone could use the plugin agents with zmq, but not dhcp
21:32:27 <ewindisch> (the matchmaker is pluggable)
21:32:42 <ewindisch>danwent: yes - in theory, anyway.
21:33:23 <ewindisch> I'm certainly okay with ZeroMQ marked as experimental, especially in relation to Quantum.
21:33:32 <danwent> I would say we document that zmq is experimental for Quantum and note that in particular DHCP won't work.
21:33:38 <ttx>danwent: sounds good
21:33:39 <danwent> :)
21:33:52 <ttx>danwent: so we are good to cut RC3 ?
21:33:56 <danwent> yes
21:34:06 <ttx> Looking at release notes status now:
21:34:11 <ttx>#link http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Folsom#OpenStack_Network_Service_.28Quantum.2921:34:19 <ttx> Same remark: you should add link to bug in the known issues section
21:34:25 <ttx> And a bit more verbosity couldn't hurt.
21:34:35 <danwent> ok.
21:34:38 <ttx> Planning for the "Quantum" topic at the Design Summit...
21:34:44 <ttx> I see 9 proposals over a total of 22 slots so far
21:34:54 <danwent> basically, the core team hasn't even started proposing yet
21:35:03 <ttx> yeah, that's what I suspected
21:35:05 <danwent> they have (thankfully) been focused on folsom :)
21:35:08 <ttx>danwent: Anything else ?
21:35:28 <danwent> nope. after thursday, i'll start encouraging folks to propose sessions
21:35:35 <ttx> (and people still asking me why the design summit track is not aligned in CFP with the other tracks
21:35:37 <ttx> )
21:35:53 <ttx> Questions on Quantum ?
21:35:59 <ewindisch> danwent; also worth noting that it needs the binary from Nova :(
21:36:14 <ttx>jgriffith: around?
21:36:27 <danwent>ewindisch: ok, can you send me a note with what you want in the docs about zmq?
21:36:32 <jgriffith>ttx: howdy
21:36:34 <ewindisch> okay
21:36:35 <ttx>#topic Cinder status21:36:42 <ttx>#info Cinder got its RC2 out earlier today21:36:48 <ttx> Looking at the RC-potential list now:
21:36:53 <ttx>#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bugs?field.tag=folsom-rc-potential21:37:04 <ttx> bug 1055401
21:37:05 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1055401 in nova "[ietd] can not delete volume sucessfully" [High,In progress] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1055401
21:37:10 <ttx> bug 1056246
21:37:11 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1056246 in nova "using tgt-admin --conf option creates false sense of security, volume attach still fails after tgtd restart" [High,Fix committed] https://launchpad.net/bugs/1056246
21:37:28 <ttx> Are those regressions ? Failures in new features ?
21:37:42 <jgriffith> Regressions for the most part
21:38:06 <jgriffith> Results of new changes that went in that weren't found in Ubuntu, but in Fedora test day
21:38:12 <ttx> the --conf thing is a bit scary to me.. reverting it restores the bug that it was supposed to fix, no ?
21:38:27 <jgriffith>ttx: Not really... that was my first thought
21:38:33 <eglynn>ttx: it didn't really fix it
21:38:43 <jgriffith>ttx: It fixes it for one use case
21:38:47 <eglynn>ttx: (didn't survive accross tgtd restarts)
21:39:01 <jgriffith>ttx: So that part is still all good
21:39:13 <jgriffith>ttx: I took the conf file out a while back as it wasn't *needed*
21:39:16 <ttx> so we restore the original (critical) bug ?
21:39:24 <ttx> rather than half-fixing it ?
21:39:32 <jgriffith>ttx: No
21:39:57 <jgriffith>ttx: It's been a bit of a sorted tail... the original fix for the critical bug I dind't have the conf file option in there anywya
21:40:14 <markmc> ttx, the issue is that distros/users need to modify the tgtd config file - /etc/tgtd/targets.conf
21:40:16 <eglynn>ttx: it wasn't even really a half-fix, just gave a false sense of initial security
21:40:18 <jgriffith> It was pointed out that if we have the persist file we should use it in tgt-adm udpates
21:40:25 <markmc> ttx, the "fix" we're reverting just masked that requirement
21:40:36 <ttx> hhmkay. so you'd like to do a RC3 over those two fixes ?
21:40:42 <markmc> ttx, I added some details to http://etherpad.openstack.org/nova-folsom
21:40:48 <ttx> rather tha fixing them in stable/folsom ?
21:41:02 <jgriffith>ttx: Those two and if we're doing one might as well add: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13581/
21:41:50 <ttx>jgriffith: ok... I'll delay the decision on that one until we do Nova
21:41:58 <jgriffith>ttx: fair enough
21:41:59 <ttx> since that would also trigger a Nova RC3
21:42:12 <jgriffith> The first two will as well FWITW
21:42:26 <ttx> yeah
21:42:34 <ttx> Cinder release notes at:
21:42:37 <ttx>#link http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Folsom#OpenStack_Block_Storage_.28Cinder.2921:42:44 <ttx>jgriffith: Not so much in there so far, planning to work on it ?
21:43:04 <jgriffith>ttx: Yes I certainly am
21:43:16 <ttx> Time is running short
21:43:18 <ttx> Cinder topic at the Design Summit so far:
21:43:23 <ttx> 5 proposals for 7 available slots, looking good
21:43:34 <ttx>jgriffith: Anything else before we switch to Nova ?
21:43:35 <jgriffith> Yep, someobody's going to get cut :)
21:43:38 <jgriffith> Nope
21:43:42 <ttx> Questions on Cinder ?
21:43:46 <ttx>vishy: around ?
21:43:54 <vishy> yup
21:43:58 <ttx>#topic Nova status21:44:03 <ttx>#info Nova got its RC2 out earlier today21:44:23 <ttx>#link https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bugs?field.tag=folsom-rc-potential21:44:40 <ttx> if we trigger a RC3 due to Cinder... anything else you'd add to it ?
21:44:48 <vishy> yes
21:44:59 <ttx> in addition to the above-mentioned 3 ?
21:45:20 <vishy> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13649/
21:45:23 <vishy> that one
21:45:53 <ttx> ok then, let's do another round
21:46:07 * ttxis in a good mood or what21:46:10 <vishy> I haven't found any other's that seem worth the risk yet
21:46:23 <vishy> there are a few other good fixes but i think they are fine through stable/folsom
21:46:26 <ttx>vishy: I'd rather have a very short list at this point
21:46:31 <vishy> I marked them folsom-backport-potential
21:46:49 <ttx> given that time to go through gate will quickly become a factor in borking the release
21:47:15 <ttx> so let me open Cinder RC3 and Nova RC3 and target appropriately
21:48:22 <ttx>jgriffith: https://launchpad.net/cinder/+milestone/folsom-rc3 <- please target your 3 bugs to it
21:48:42 <ttx>vishy: https://launchpad.net/nova/+milestone/folsom-rc3 <-- please target your 4 bugs to it
21:48:56 <ttx> or 5 if that last review really fixes two bugs
21:49:04 <ttx> Let's have a look at Nova release notes:
21:49:09 <ttx> http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Folsom#OpenStack_Compute_.28Nova.29
21:49:18 <ttx> Quite empty so far, more in prep @ http://etherpad.openstack.org/nova-folsom
21:49:27 <ttx>vishy: Maybe time to move it over ?
21:50:36 <vishy>ttx: soon. I want to add a bit more to fetures
21:51:02 <ttx>vishy: oh btw anything we'd do wrt zmq in that RC3 ?
21:51:30 <vishy> yes ignore it
21:51:33 <vishy> :)
21:51:51 <ttx> I'm fine with that if you are.
21:51:54 <vishy> looks like the change didnt' go into quantum anyway, so we are leaving the old implementation in for folsom
21:52:02 <ttx> Design Summit planning now... I see 18 proposals for 31 available slots
21:52:15 <ttx> Would be good to spend some of the next Nova meeting(s) looking into what's missing
21:52:24 <ttx>vishy: Anything else ?
21:52:28 <vishy>ttx: agreed. I haven't even looked at it yet
21:52:55 <ttx> we ahve two weeks between release and summit this time around, so not as much as a rush
21:53:04 <ttx> Questions on Nova ?
21:53:18 <ttx>#topic Glance status21:53:25 <ttx>bcwaldon: o/
21:53:25 <markmc> vishy, I added "zmq is experimental" to the nova release notes
21:53:31 <ttx>#info Glance had its RC2 published earlier today21:53:33 <bcwaldon>ttx: my apologies for lateness
21:53:38 <ttx> No folsom-rc-potential bugs:
21:53:40 <bcwaldon>ttx: well
21:53:42 <bcwaldon>ttx: refresh
21:53:51 <vishy>markmc: good call :)
21:53:51 * ttxsobs21:53:56 <bcwaldon>ttx: eglynn has one
21:54:16 <bcwaldon>ttx: its not a dealbreaker, but it might help us get to critical mass for an rc3
21:54:21 <ttx>eglynn: remind me not to buy you beers at the summit.
21:54:28 <bcwaldon> burn
21:54:40 * eglynnslinks off ...21:54:50 * russellbbuys eglynn two beers for having to take that from ttx21:54:58 <ttx>bcwaldon: that would be the only fix ?
21:55:06 <bcwaldon>ttx: so far, yes
21:55:28 <bcwaldon>ttx: and it's very minor
21:56:03 <ttx> the only reason why I'd consider it is that it's less mainful to change config opts before release than after
21:56:10 <ttx> painful*
21:56:46 <ttx> it's a new option, right ?
21:56:47 <bcwaldon>ttx: ok, fair point
21:56:51 <bcwaldon>ttx: its new for folsom
21:56:53 <ttx> rabbit_durable_queues
21:56:58 <ttx> right, ok then
21:57:02 <eglynn> yep, new in glance, existing elsewhere
21:57:13 <bcwaldon>ttx: ok, maybe that raises priority
21:57:15 <ttx>eglynn: it's fixed everywhere else ?
21:57:26 <eglynn> ttx only broken in glance
21:57:35 <ttx>eglynn: ok then
21:57:44 <bcwaldon>eglynn: it was an attempt to get parity in glance with the rest of the projects, one minor oversight though
21:57:47 <ttx> will open RC3 and target only that one to it
21:57:51 <bcwaldon>ttx: ^
21:58:01 <bcwaldon>ttx: ok, sorry :(
21:58:06 <ttx> Release notes status:
21:58:09 <bcwaldon>ttx: I'm just trying to keep you busy
21:58:11 <ttx>#link http://wiki.openstack.org/ReleaseNotes/Folsom#OpenStack_Image_Service_.28Glance.2921:58:13 <eglynn>ttx: thanks!
21:58:28 <ttx> nothing like 6 respins on D-1
21:58:43 <ttx> maybe 7, gabrielhurley hasn't talked yet
21:58:46 <bcwaldon>ttx: way to put things in perspective
21:59:08 <ttx> Release notes could use a bit more verbosity, otherwise looks good
21:59:14 <ttx> Also add link to bug in the known issues section
21:59:21 <ttx> "Glance" topic at the design summit: 2 proposals for 5 available slots so far
21:59:26 <ttx>bcwaldon: Anything else ?
22:00:09 <bcwaldon>ttx: no sir, I havent looked at those proposals, either
22:00:20 <bcwaldon>ttx: I'll shift into planning phase next week
22:00:25 <ttx> https://launchpad.net/glance/+milestone/folsom-rc3 with one bug on it
22:00:31 <ttx> Questions on Glance ?
22:00:50 <ttx>#topic Horizon status22:00:57 <ttx>gabrielhurley: around ?
22:00:58 <gabrielhurley> RC2 stands as good, no new blocking bugs; release notes will be pasted into wiki momentarily; summit track needs more work. ;-)
22:01:21 <ttx> other PTLs: see ? that's how to do it
22:01:24 <gabrielhurley> lol
22:01:33 <bcwaldon>ttx: don't you start
22:01:34 * heckjtrips gabrielhurley22:01:37 <jgriffith>gabrielhurley: show off!
22:01:47 <gabrielhurley> I have to sit through an hour of y'all talking!
22:01:52 <heckj> blah blah blah
22:02:05 <ttx> Questions for Horizon ?
22:02:05 <gabrielhurley> <3
22:02:18 <bcwaldon>gabrielhurley: I love that I was way late but still got stuck back in rotation before you
22:02:18 <danwent>gabrielhurley: show off :P
22:02:33 <ttx> more difficult for heckj; he does not know what the exam will be about since he goes first
22:02:44 * gabrielhurleydoesn't envy heckj22:02:48 <heckj> that's ok - I just make it up as I'm going along anyway
22:02:56 <ttx>#topic Other Team reports22:03:01 <heckj> who needs planning and forethough
22:03:07 <ttx>annegentle: around ? how is documentation going ?
22:03:18 * markmchas a stable/essex update22:03:20 <annegentle> around
22:03:29 <ttx>markmc: priority to the ladies
22:03:35 <markmc> ttx, yep :)
22:03:42 <annegentle> why thank you
22:03:58 <annegentle> lots of good doc reviews going through. I'm doing my best to keep Quantum's builds going well.
22:04:09 <annegentle> The redesign of the docs landing pages is now done.
22:04:25 <bcwaldon>annegentle: good work on that redesign
22:04:25 <annegentle> Realized today I hadn't linked in all the docs.openstack.org/developer links
22:04:31 <ttx>annegentle: so we are in reasonably good shape for release time ?
22:04:36 <annegentle>bcwaldon: thanks
22:04:43 <ttx> even if it's always work in progress ?
22:04:47 <annegentle>ttx: I'd like some help with a scientific way to call docs "done"
22:04:58 <annegentle>ttx: the bug list is still over 100
22:05:07 <annegentle>ttx: and they're tagged and triaged quite well
22:05:22 <annegentle> so, I'm looking for the best backlog/task/bug management for docs ideas
22:05:32 <annegentle> because, we'll need to freeze at some point for translators
22:05:49 <ttx>annegentle: yes, we need to discuss that. Doc / release interlock
22:05:53 <annegentle> also, I'm still seeking one more Documentation topic for the Design Summit - one presenter had to relinquish his spot
22:06:09 <ttx>annegentle: maybe more suggestions will come up
22:06:19 <annegentle> that's it, thanks for listening
22:06:23 <ttx> not a big deal if you have an empty slot though, gives flexibility in scheduling
22:06:33 <ttx>markmc: go ahead
22:06:42 <markmc> so, stable/folsom will open this week
22:06:52 <ttx> Friday hopefully
22:06:54 <markmc> and stable/essex will go into mothball mode
22:07:09 <markmc> I'm hoping to do a 2012.1.3 release
22:07:10 * ttxgoogles22:07:16 <markmc> thinking 2012-10-11
22:07:21 <markmc> I can't do it next week
22:07:24 <markmc> latest status is:
22:07:32 <markmc>nova: 10 fixes merged, 4 pending, 2 other potentials
22:07:32 <markmc>glance: nothing merged or pending, 1 potential
22:07:32 <markmc>keystone: 2 security fixes (critical/high), 3 others merged
22:07:32 <markmc>horizon: 1 security fix (medium), 3 others merged, 2 more potential
22:07:35 <markmc> ..
22:07:46 <markmc> so all but glance already have stuff worth doing a release for
22:08:06 <markmc> basically, I reckon this would be a nice way to close out stable/essex and move on to stable/folsom
22:08:50 <ttx>markmc: I suspect some will pick up stable/essex branch maint
22:09:01 <ttx> but yes, stable release wise...
22:09:06 <markmc> ttx, right, "mothball" is too strong :)
22:09:16 <bcwaldon>markmc: markwash has a patch in review that is a major candidate for glance stable/essex
22:09:21 <ttx>markmc: sounds like a plan
22:09:33 <ttx>markmc: anything else ?
22:09:42 <markmc> ttx, nope, thanks
22:09:42 <ttx> Any other team lead with a status report ?
22:09:53 <ttx>#topic Open discussion22:10:00 <ttx>#info TC elections are running until the end of day Thursday!22:10:04 <ttx> Anything else, anyone ?
22:10:11 <markmc> bcwaldon, this one? https://bugs.launchpad.net/glance/essex/+bug/1012820
22:10:12 <uvirtbot> Launchpad bug 1012820 in glance "Diablo->Essex migration breaks Nova image_ref" [High,In progress]
22:10:19 <heckj>ttx: backport to milestone/proposed for Keystone RC2 is up and processing: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13667/
22:10:20 <bcwaldon>markmc: yes sir
22:10:27 <markmc> bcwaldon, saw your comment that you'll backport a fix alright
22:10:44 <ttx> ok, let's make it happen
22:10:45 <ttx>#endmeeting